Yeah, I agree with you that the article is incorrect. The article is only correct about what Obamacare is:"Power to the insurance industry." but completely wrong about the goal, results and the mechanism. Obamacare is simply a temporary state between now and completely socialized medicine. It seems like insurance companies are ruling the roost and they are, but it is not the contraction in the business or the power of these companies that is really up for grabs. It is the huge contract to run "Medicare for ALL" that these companies are laboring to acquire.

Clearly without the ability to restrict the pool of risk, only a monopoly insurance company with power to lobby the government for breaks and favors could possibly make money in this new environment. So all of the smaller companies are trying to consolidate into large ones with large payrolls and lots of cash to use to lobby the government. To make matter worse, these giant psuedo-monopoly companies are limited in their power also as they will eventually be squeezed out of existence as well.

The unfortunate thing is what is going to happen to those inside and ouside the medical profession as they get this awful transition from what we have today to full outright socialization.

The brilliant part of all of this Obummercare that is rarely mentioned is that the insurance companies have positioned themselves to get real bounty from going socialized. When a people allow government to take over an industry, there is a time gap where the folks in the industry have not yet adjusted to the new environment. And everybody likes this period as the old vendors compete in the same way they always have. But eventually these folks either change to the political system at hand or go out of business and the system deteriorates from there.

this is the second time Infowars has posted an article that, in my opinion, is misleading about a topic. The first one was about banks taking over our money. Making it seem, private banks are to blame for the money supply being inflated. And now this article.

I was on the prisonplanet forum trying to explain that government is the reason our money is inflated and ruined. That banks do't have the power. But they banned me. I haven't been back to the prisonplanet forum since.

Also the logic is hose up about regulation changes because there are losers in addition to the winners. Any regulation change produces both winners and losers. And the saddest part is that some of those losers would have had survivable business models. Furthermore the regulations have their worst effect on the elimination of future competition. So Prison Planet is wrong on several fronts.

The insurance companies believe they will become isolated from competition for all time from now, that they have installed themselves with business unassailable in the marketplace, that they are now too-big-to-fail and will be guaranteed long-term survival as QuaNGOs if nothing else. We shall see.

I lose interest when they start ranting about private takeovers of X industry. It's unsubstantiated baloney mostly, and pro-democracy ideologues lap it up because they cannot accept that democracies are by their very nature, fabric and fibre, ocholocracies and kleptocracies.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

I see it a different way. I think that these Insurance company execs are not in it for the long-term. They're in it for the medium-term gain at max. The new legislation will increase costs on everyone, meaning only the largest insurance companies will survive. They also get the short term benefit of forced purchase of their products, but the essential aspect of the bill is the abolition of discriminating between customers. This will inevitably drive interest rates up as companies start paying out more and more. As companies become unable to screen for customers or determine their own terms for handing out funds, rates will rise, and more people will take the tax rather than the insurance policy. Eventually the whole thing will become bankrupt, whereupon there will be a "state-private partnership", which Bill Clinton was alluding to earlier in the election season, or the nationalization of the heatlhcare industry, for which the execs would surely get a handsome reward (like what happened in WWI)

As companies become unable to screen for customers or determine their own terms for handing out funds, rates will rise, and more people will take the tax rather than the insurance policy.

Hah, never thought of that, but you're right, that's probably exactly how it'll go. If cost becomes high enough that private insurers just drop out, you can always fall back on paying the tax and bam, right into public care.

I pay over $10,000 a year for my family's health insurance! I work for a public school district, and my insurance seems to get more expensive every year. My little daughter had some discharge puss coming out of her eyes. Anyway, we took her to the doctor and the doctor said, its a viral infection, but if she keeps scratching it, it could turn into a bacteria infection. So, she prescribed some eye drops. Went to Walgreens, $96 freakin dollars for the drops!

I said forget that; we happen to have a bottle of Sovereign Silver (collodial silver) and I used that as eye drops for her instead. It cleared right up after about 2 days.

It might have cleared up on its own if we didn't use anything, who knows.

Obamacare is intentionally designed to be bad legislation, forcing the need to revisit it in the near future where some hope the coversation switches to some form of government run universal healthcare. A lot of socialists don't like the law because it didn't go far enough. As Obama would probably tell them, "baby steps".

Meanwhile, healthcare corporations (insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc.) were heavily involved in the tried and true practice of using government to get leverage over competitors in this piece of legislation. In fact, so much so that the law is a total mess and will take up a lot of time and money to figure it out legally (via lawsuits) - more business for lawyers.

So what you find are the usual takers at work trying to pry away something at the expense of others (usually the consumer).

I would also not doubt that investment bankers/brokers are licking their chops over potential mergers and acqusitions driven from the changes ushered in by the law.